Shriram Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12426 of 2024

¶3

Shriram Singh

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Gaurav Sharma, Vijay Kumar Mishra : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 73

¶7

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶8

Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

¶9

Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶10

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 48-A of 2006, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120B, 218, 34 IPC and Section 13(2) P.C. Act, Police Station Gadwar, District Ballia with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and applicant was not public servant and he was mere fair price shop owner but in spite of that he has been made accused in the present matter.

¶12

He further submits, however, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 206 but till date investigation of the case is still pending and after almost 20 years Investigating Officer is trying to arrest the applicant.

¶13

He further submits, after more than two decades there is no need to send the applicant behind the bar.

¶14

He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history.

¶15

ABAIL No. 12426 of 2024

¶16

2

¶17

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶19

However, as per allegation, applicant was Fair Prince Shop owner and he along with other co-accused misappropriated the public fund but it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and till date investigation is still pending.

¶20

Record further suggests that immediately after the FIR Investigating Officer did not make any attempt to arrest the applicant and after almost 20 years he made attempt to arrest the applicant and there is no allegation that applicant is either absconder or he is not cooperating with the investigation.

¶21

The Apex Court in the case of Gursewak Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Special Leave to Appeal Criminal No. 11234 of 2025) decided on 03.09.2025 observed "the fact that the petitioner was not arrested for four years by itself was a good ground for the High Court to exercise its discretion and order grant of anticipatory bail".

¶22

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.

¶23

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

¶24

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶25

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Shriram Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions:-

¶26

i. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer

¶27

ABAIL No. 12426 of 2024

¶28

3

¶29

or tamper with the evidence;

¶30

ii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶31

iii. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶32

iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶33

v. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶34

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶35

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶36

October 10, 2025 AK Pandey

¶37

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶38

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shriram Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases